The “semiotic square” was initially put forward for analyzing the narrative functions is based on works carried out at the beginning of the century by the Russian formalist Vladimir Prop. See for example, Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale. Austin, University of Texas Press. Propp drew up an inventory of the functions of the Russian tale and found an astonishing stability in their functional sequences. From one tale to another, the sequence of actions may be generalized (as shown in the list below) and brought back to a series of optional functions, independent of their specific circumstances:
Initial situation (absence, prohibition, etc.)
Villainy
The hero is approached with a request or command, etc.
Departure
Test and reception of magical object
The hero and the villain join in direct combat, etc.
Liquidation of initial misfortune or lack
The hero returns, is pursued, etc.
Punishment
Marriage, etc.
Applying a structuralist approach to these formal results (Propp simply looked for and found remarkable forms), Greimas transforms this linear sequence into a system of oppositions in Greimas, A. J. (1966), Sémantique structurale. Paris, Larousse. In the book:                He couples reciprocal functions: prohibition vs. violation, command vs. acceptance.        He generalizes these pairs: (mandate vs. acceptance)=establishment of the contract, (prohibition vs. violation)=breaching of the contract, etc.        He obtains a square figure: (mandate vs. acceptance) vs. (prohibition vs. violation), in which the terms prohibition and violation are respectively the negative (privative) forms of command and acceptance.        
An example of a semiotic square is shown in FIG. 1. This squared figure is doubly emblematic as it forms the heart of the functional outline, the “contract” and it is based on a squared figure that combines three canonical semiotic relations:
Opposition (mandate vs. acceptance);
Absence (mandate vs. prohibition); and,
Gradation (mandate vs. violation).
“Modern logic designates the first (‘contrary’) relationship equipollent . . . ; it designates the second (‘contradictory’) relationship privative . . . : that is, the opposition formed by the presence or absence of some quality . . . A third logical opposition—the three together exhausting the logical possibilities of opposition—it designates arbitrary (or gradual) . . . : that is, the opposition formed by cultural (and hence ‘arbitrary’) categories . . . The elements of this last opposition often appear on a continuum . . . : hence the designation gradual” as described in Schleifer, R. (1983). Introduction. Structural semantics. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press: xii-lvi, pg. xxxiii. Greimas can therefore resume the dynamics of the narrative functions in a functional outline built around a double inversion as shown in FIG. 2.
It is desirable to utilize the semiotic square to perform sentiment analysis and searches which is not performed by current systems and method. Thus, it is desirable to provide a semiotic square sentiment analysis system and method and it is to this end that the disclosure is directed.